<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (10) TMI 59 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32004</link>
    <description>Institutions imparting higher education and awarding qualifications recognised by law were held not to fall within the taxable category of a commercial training or coaching centre under the Finance Act, 1994, because the provider&#039;s activity was educational rather than commercial coaching. The Board&#039;s circular was noted as supporting exclusion of institutions issuing recognised degrees, diplomas or certificates, even where some training is also provided. The extended limitation period was also held unavailable, as the relevant activities were in the public domain and the Department had prior knowledge; without suppression of material facts with intent to evade tax, penalties could not be sustained. Demand, interest and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70648" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 59 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32004</link>
      <description>Institutions imparting higher education and awarding qualifications recognised by law were held not to fall within the taxable category of a commercial training or coaching centre under the Finance Act, 1994, because the provider&#039;s activity was educational rather than commercial coaching. The Board&#039;s circular was noted as supporting exclusion of institutions issuing recognised degrees, diplomas or certificates, even where some training is also provided. The extended limitation period was also held unavailable, as the relevant activities were in the public domain and the Department had prior knowledge; without suppression of material facts with intent to evade tax, penalties could not be sustained. Demand, interest and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32004</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>